BACKGROUND: To test the applicability of the appropriateness evaluation protocol (AEP) as a tool for reviewing hospital utilisation. To quantify and to compare the rate of inappropriate admissions and amount of in-hospital days, emphasising the main causes and factors in the hospital associated with inappropriateness during the studied periods of time. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two retrospective studies were carried out, the first one in 1992, when 2048 clinical histories were analysed, and the second in 1996, with 1099 reviewed histories. The tool used for the evaluation of the level of hospital utilisation is the AEP. RESULTS: The proportion of admissions considered to be inappropriate was 25% (95% CI: 20.8-24.5) in 1992, and 16% (95% CI: 13.8-18.2) in 1996. Premature admission was the most frequent cause of inappropriateness in both periods. The logistic regression model built for the dependent variable admission showed the following variables to be associated to inappropriateness: scheduled admission (OR: 15; 95% CI: 10.8-20.7) and (OR: 10; 95% CI: 6-16.5), weekend admission (OR: 2; 95% CI: 1.3-1.2) and (OR: 2; 95% CI: 1.2-2.3), for 1992 and 1996, respectively. The rate of inappropriate in-hospital stays in 1992 was 29% (95% CI: 28.3-29.6), and 13.5% (95% CI: 12.7-14.3) in 1996. Hospital organisational problems were the main cause of inappropriate in-hospital days in 1992, and diagnostic/ therapeutical tests that could be performed ambulatorily ranked first in 1996. The logistic regression model built for the dependent variable in-hospital days had the following independent variables associated to its inappropriateness: discharge on weekdays (OR: 1.4; 95% CI: 1.2-1.8) and (OR: 0.6; 95% CI: 0.5-0.8) and length of stay (OR: 2; 95% CI: 1.8-2.4) and (OR: 2.4; 95% CI: 2.3-2.5), for 1992 and 1996 respectively, among other variables. CONCLUSION: Periodic checking of the utilisation levels with the application of methods such as the AEP will contribute towards adapting hospital management in the more competitive current setting.
BACKGROUND: To test the applicability of the appropriateness evaluation protocol (AEP) as a tool for reviewing hospital utilisation. To quantify and to compare the rate of inappropriate admissions and amount of in-hospital days, emphasising the main causes and factors in the hospital associated with inappropriateness during the studied periods of time. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two retrospective studies were carried out, the first one in 1992, when 2048 clinical histories were analysed, and the second in 1996, with 1099 reviewed histories. The tool used for the evaluation of the level of hospital utilisation is the AEP. RESULTS: The proportion of admissions considered to be inappropriate was 25% (95% CI: 20.8-24.5) in 1992, and 16% (95% CI: 13.8-18.2) in 1996. Premature admission was the most frequent cause of inappropriateness in both periods. The logistic regression model built for the dependent variable admission showed the following variables to be associated to inappropriateness: scheduled admission (OR: 15; 95% CI: 10.8-20.7) and (OR: 10; 95% CI: 6-16.5), weekend admission (OR: 2; 95% CI: 1.3-1.2) and (OR: 2; 95% CI: 1.2-2.3), for 1992 and 1996, respectively. The rate of inappropriate in-hospital stays in 1992 was 29% (95% CI: 28.3-29.6), and 13.5% (95% CI: 12.7-14.3) in 1996. Hospital organisational problems were the main cause of inappropriate in-hospital days in 1992, and diagnostic/ therapeutical tests that could be performed ambulatorily ranked first in 1996. The logistic regression model built for the dependent variable in-hospital days had the following independent variables associated to its inappropriateness: discharge on weekdays (OR: 1.4; 95% CI: 1.2-1.8) and (OR: 0.6; 95% CI: 0.5-0.8) and length of stay (OR: 2; 95% CI: 1.8-2.4) and (OR: 2.4; 95% CI: 2.3-2.5), for 1992 and 1996 respectively, among other variables. CONCLUSION: Periodic checking of the utilisation levels with the application of methods such as the AEP will contribute towards adapting hospital management in the more competitive current setting.
Authors: Sonia Tamames; Alberto Perez Rubio; Javier Castrodeza Sanz; Maria Belen Canton Alvarez; Francisco J Luquero; Sara Santos Sanz; Placido Lopez Encinar; Maria Paz de la Torre Pardo; Juan Manuel Gil Gonzalez Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2007-11-19 Impact factor: 2.655